Delhi High Court - Orders
Vineet Sharma vs The Registrar Of Trade Mark on 2 August, 2024
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 59/2024 & I.A. Nos. 35207/2024, 35208/2024
& 35280/2024
VINEET SHARMA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Utkarsh Gupta, Advocate.
(M): 8860211682
Email: [email protected]
versus
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARK .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,
CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra
and Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday,
Advocates.
(M): 9810788606
Email: [email protected]
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
ORDER
% 02.08.2024 I.A. No. 35208/2024 (Application seeking exemption from filing new Court Fees)
1. The present application has been filed for exemption from filing Court Fees.
2. Let the Court Fees be filed by the appellant within a period of two weeks from today.
3. With the aforesaid directions, the present application is disposed of. I.A. No. 35207/2024 (Application seeking Condonation of Delay of 31 C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 59/2024 Page 1 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/08/2024 at 06:40:25 days in filing the appeal )
4. The present application has been filed under Section 151 CPC, seeking condonation of delay of 31 days, in filing the present appeal.
5. Considering the submissions made in the present application, the delay of 31 days in filing the appeal, is condoned.
6. Accordingly, application is disposed of.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 59/2024 & I.A. No. 35280/2024 (for stay)
7. The present appeal has been filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in Application no. 5504578, filed by the petitioner for registration of trademark 'SACRED HOLIDAY', which was refused order vide dated 15th March, 2024, passed by the Examiner of Trademarks under Section 9(1)(B) and 11(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Hearing Officer failed to appreciate that the applied mark comes within the provisions of definition of trade mark, hence, the provisions of Section 9(1)(B) are not applicable against the appellant's applied trademark. Thus, it is submitted that petitioner is the lawful owner and proprietor of the invented/coined mark 'SACRED HOLIDAY', under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
9. Issue notice.
10. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent, who submits that a copy of the present appeal has not been supplied to him.
11. Accordingly, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is directed to supply a copy of the appeal along with the documents to learned counsel appearing for the respondent, within a period of one week from today.
12. Let reply be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 59/2024 Page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/08/2024 at 06:40:25 any, be filed within a period of two weeks, thereafter.
13. List on 05th November, 2024.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J AUGUST 2, 2024 c C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 59/2024 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/08/2024 at 06:40:26